[bestbits] Proposed Best Bits steering committee election process

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 10 Apr 2014, at 6:39 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think overall it is solid, except for the gender bits.  Are you
> really proposing to invalidate the election if the 40% threshold isn't
> met?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to mandate that a number (say 50%) of candidates
> be women or the election won't be run?

Thanks.  It's a good suggestion and I agree that it would make sense to apply this to the candidates who put themselves forward for election.  But based on someone else's previous suggestion (I don't remember whose, sorry) that it be "at least x% of each gender" rather than "at least x% women", we should keep the threshold to 40%, so that an imbalance of up to 10% of either gender won't prevent the election from being run.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140410/b74f046d/attachment.sig>